Tom, the following quote depicts Jesus explaining His life and death and resurrection to the holy angels. Please note that He explained it to the angels before Genesis 3:15 was declared to our first parents.

Again, nowhere in the Bible or the SOP does Jesus express doubt or uncertainty regarding the details and outcome of His earthly mission. He always confidently stated that He would succeed. Such confidence, however, does not take away from the “risk” He took while sojourning here on earth.

I didn’t realize I misunderstood your position. I just assumed “death is the result of sin” means sin is what causes them to suffer and die. So, which is it? Is it sin that punishes and destroys sinners according to their sinfulness in the lake of fire? Or, is it the unveiled glory of God that causes them to suffer and die?

We've spoken about this in great detail in the past. You don't remember? Sin is what causes the wicked not to be able to bear the glory of God.

Elsewhere you have stated that only the death of Jesus on the cross was able to eliminate the last link of sympathy that existed in the hearts of loyal angels toward Satan.

No, I didn't state that. See the comment on necessity and sufficiency below.

Now you seem to be implying God could have accomplished it some other way.

I said, given that man did not fall, I believe it's possible that God could have answered the questions involving unfallen worlds and the angels in some other way than by Christ's death.

But you emphatically reject the idea that Adam and Eve could have accomplished it by refusing to eat the forbidden fruit.

No, I didn't emphatically reject this idea. I didn't reject it at all. I asked you to explain what your position was. I wasn't understanding the reasoning behind your statements that Adam and Eve could have accomplished what the death of Christ did, especially in the context of DA 764, which is from "It Is Finished," which is where you looked to have been quoting from.


MM: Sure it does. Do you disagree with what I posted above? The loyal angels did not question the love and goodness of God.

I think they didn't question this until Satan began to raise questions about it.

What they were unsure about was whether or not obeying the law caused unrest, if it deprived people from realizing their full potential.

This was one of the issues Satan raised. The principle issue, I think, is whether God acted from a basis of self-interest or not. The answer to that question pretty much answers every other question. Sister White states that the cross forever answered this question (i.e., it answered the question of whether God acted in self-interest, the answer being "no," of course).

By faith they believed, but God promised to prove it, first through Adam and Eve, but then through Jesus and finally through the 144,000. Do you agree?

Not really. At least not quite how your stating it. However, I'm open to any quotes you may have on this. In particular, I'd be interested in quotes that have to do with how Adam and Eve would demonstrate the truth about God, disproving the issues that Satan had raised. Simiarly for the 144,000. I don't believe the angels have any doubts regarding God anymore, since Calvary. In the above referenced quote, Sister White said something like the question if God acted in self-interest was forever answered by the cross. The angels and unfallen worlds have already been eternally secured by what Jesus Christ did. They are not dependent upon the 144,000 in any way. I'm just saying this of myself; it's not clear to me that you are asserting anything contrary to what I'm saying here.

Again, we disagree as to what causes sinners to suffer and die in proportion to their sinfulness in the lake of fire. Your view seems to imply that sin, not God, causes sinners to suffer and die. But then you hasten to add it is the unveiled glory of God that causes it. Which is it?

The glory of God is His character. I think when the wicked come into contact with God, that His goodness causes them pain, along the lines of what is described in GC 543. I'll quote a bit of it:



The pain they feel is proportional to the sin they've committed not for any arbitrary reason (i.e. arbitrary = imposed, or not related to cause and effect) but because the more sin there is, the more pain when light and truth (the glory of God) come into contact with it.

You also seem to be saying that only the death of Jesus could have effectively prevented the evil seed of rebellion from arising in the hearts of the loyal angels.

No, I didn't say that. I never said "only." I've noticed you are not careful in distinguishing between necessity and sufficiency. This has come up in a number of threads. I'll explain.

Let's say that kemotherapy can cure a certain cancer, and does so. A person is cured. The fact that the person was cured by kemotherapy does not prove that the person could not have been cured in some other way.

From DA 764, and other places, we know that the death of Jesus did prevent the evil seed of doubt ("doubt" is the word used in DA 764, as I recall, not "rebellion," although this doesn't matter) from arising. However, the fact that the death of Jesus accomplished this does not imply anything one way or the other regarding whether or not God could have accomplished this in some other way.

We have explicit statements that there was no other way to save man than by the death of Jesus, but no such statements regarding unfallen worlds or angels. We have statements of sufficiency, but not of necessity.

But you also insist God could have accomplished it lots of other ways, that even if Jesus had not volunteered to save us or even if Jesus had failed in His attempt to save us, that God could have accomplished it some other way. Which is it?

You should read more carefully. I'm very careful in what I write. I never said, let alone "insisted", that God could have accomplished it in some other way, let alone lots of other ways. I said God MIGHT have been able to accomplish it in some other way. We don't know. God hasn't told us.

“God had sworn by Himself that Jesus would succeed.” And yet you insist God was not 100% certain if Jesus would fail or succeed. How could He swear by Himself that Jesus would succeed?

Because He had faith in His Son. His swearing was based on faith and character, not His ability to see the future. This sounds like something John B. would say. Haven't heard from him in quite a while.

Satan trembled as he viewed his work. He was alone in meditation upon the past, the present, and his future plans. His mighty frame shook as with a tempest. An angel from heaven was passing. He called him and entreated an interview with Christ. This was granted him. He then related to the Son of God that he repented of his rebellion and wished again the favor of God. He was willing to take the place God had previously assigned him, and be under His wise command. Christ wept at Satan's woe but told him, as the mind of God, that he could never be received into heaven. Heaven must not be placed in jeopardy. All heaven would be marred should he be received back, for sin and rebellion originated with him. The seeds of rebellion were still within him. He had, in his rebellion, no occasion for his course, and he had hopelessly ruined not only himself but the host of angels also, who would then have been happy in heaven had he remained steadfast. The law of God could condemn but could not pardon. {SR 26.1}

When Adam and Eve were placed in the beautiful garden they had everything for their happiness which they could desire. But God chose, in His all-wise arrangements, to test their loyalty before they could be rendered eternally secure. They were to have His favor, and He was to converse with them and they with Him. Yet He did not place evil out of their reach. Satan was permitted to tempt them. If they endured the trial they were to be in perpetual favor with God and the heavenly angels. {SR 24.2}

Yet Satan was not then destroyed. The angels did not even then understand all that was involved in the great controversy. The principles at stake were to be more fully revealed. And for the sake of man, Satan's existence must be continued. Man as well as angels must see the contrast between the Prince of light and the prince of darkness. He must choose whom he will serve. {DA 761.3}

Another deception was now to be brought forward. Satan declared that mercy destroyed justice, that the death of Christ abrogated the Father's law. Had it been possible for the law to be changed or abrogated, then Christ need not have died. But to abrogate the law would be to immortalize transgression, and place the world under Satan's control. It was because the law was changeless, because man could be saved only through obedience to its precepts, that Jesus was lifted up on the cross. Yet the very means by which Christ established the law Satan represented as destroying it. Here will come the last conflict of the great controversy between Christ and Satan. {DA 762.5}

They have everything to do with it. Since Jesus is God and cannot die what does “eternal loss” mean, what does it entail? I believe if Jesus had failed at least two things would have happened, the results of which would have been eternal: 1) Jesus would have been banned from heaven, and 2) God would have been forced to eliminate FMAs. What do you think “eternal loss” would have looked like if Jesus had failed?

I already addressed this.

MM: You have not improved upon your position by insisting “risk” doesn’t imply or include death. It undermines the importance of His death.

TE: It cannot mean physical death for quite a number of reasons. If you don’t see this, I’m very surprised.

MM: How can the risk of dying have nothing to do with it?

TE: Because physical death does not result in eternal loss. Neither is it failure. She wrote that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. Why are you confusing this with physical death? Surely you know there's a resurrection.

MM:Sure it does. If Jesus had died because He failed to save us, then His death would have resulted in Him experiencing eternal loss.

Sorry, I'm not following you.

Again, you are divorcing the death of Jesus from the risk of eternal loss He incurred when He came here to save us. I don’t understand how can you do this.

Sorry, I'm not following you.

MM: Here is what you posted about risk:

“Risk has to do with the possibility of loss. If there is not possibility of loss, there is no risk. If the outcome of the given event is known to be positive, there is no risk involved. If the outcome of the given event is known to be negative, then there is a risk involved.”

Since Jesus’ death was positive, not negative, according to your view of risk, there was no risk. Right?

Risk of what? "Positive" in the above context has to do with loss, not with a thing being good or bad, which looks to me to be how you're taking it. If you are speaking of Christ's death in terms of a loss of life, then there was risk. In fact, the risk was 100% that Christ would lose His life.

MM: With this in mind you should be able to agree that since the death of Jesus’ humanity was inevitable there was no risk or possibility of loss. Do you? I am talking about His death as a loss, not about the resulting eternal loss. His death and His eternal loss are two different, albeit related, aspects of risk.

TE: Since your premise is wrong, there's nothing I should agree to.

Sure there is. The premise of my question is based on your view of what constitutes risk and what does not. Do you agree?

Risk is the possibility of loss. This is not "my view." If you have any acquaintences which are accountants, or actuaries, of deal with investements, finance, or risk management, ask them what risk is. Or look at a dictionary.

Since the death of Jesus' humanity was inevitable the risk of His loss of life was 100%.

Thank you. I am surprised, though, that you do not also believe it involves the death of Jesus and the destruction of the human race, including those in heaven already.

Of course it involves the death of Jesus. If He would not be resurrected, He would remain dead. I'm surprised you would reason from my statement that Jesus would not be resurrected that this does not involve His death. I made no comment regarding the human race. I wrote that had Jesus failed, the results would have been indescribably bad. God has told us very little regarding this. I've not felt a need to speculate about this.

Thank you. But how can an omnipresent God be confined to a tomb, to a planet, to a universe?

That's a good question. How could an omnipresent God become a zygote?

Elsewhere you pointed out that only the successful death of Jesus on the cross could have effectively eliminated the seed of rebellion, that only His death could have severed the last link of sympathy in the hearts of loyal angels toward Satan.

I never said "only" in reference to angels.

Based on these insights, isn’t it logical to conclude that Jesus’ failure would have resulted in the seed of rebellion arising in the hearts of FMAs, thus forcing God to deal with them the same as evil angels?

It's possible that the loyal angels might have rebelled. Then again, they might not have.

I read it all, but it doesn’t address the issue. Instead, it explains how Jesus’ success on the cross empowers believers to use their gifts to the honor and glory of God. My question is: What would God have done with mankind if Jesus had refused to save them? Would He have allowed them to live on in hopelessness until they self-eliminated, until they destroyed themselves from off the face of the earth? If so, what would that have accomplished?

It is there in the quote. You quoted a part of it. The human race would have ceased to exist apart from Christ's entering our race. That's right there in the quote. My reading of the quote is that had the plan of salvation not been instituted, man would have immediately perished. That seems very clear to me from the quote.

Sorry it offended you. I didn’t mean it that way. I’ll rephrase the point.

I appreciate and accept your apology.

If Jesus had not volunteered to save us, what would have become of the evil angels?

The same thing that will become of them given that Christ did come. They would have been given the opportunity to demonstrate the viability of their government, and they would have failed, because the principle of selfishness doesn't work.

What purpose would it serve to allow them to cohabitate the planet with fallen humans?

The fallen humans would have ceased to exist, so there would have been noone with whom to cohabitate.

How would it have disproven Satan’s accusations about the kingdom and character of God and His law?

It wouldn't have. God would have had to have done something else.

What would they have done that would have eventually helped the loyal angels to understand God allowing them to suffer the consequences of sinning without fearing God?

The loyal angels were never the ones who made clear the consequences of sinning. Christ did this.

Please keep in mind what you have posted elsewhere, that you believe only the successful death of Jesus on the cross could have effectively eliminated the seed of rebellion, that only His death could have severed the last link of sympathy in the hearts of loyal angels toward Satan.

You're adding the "only" again.

If Jesus had not died on the cross, how would God have accomplished what only the death of Jesus could accomplish?

In some other way. I can't say anything beyond this because God hasn't told us.

MM: Be that as it may, you still haven't explained why Jesus described in precise detail exactly what would happen during His earthly sojourn and that He would succeed at saving us.

This is not at all mysterious. God can see every possibility, including what would happen if Jesus succeeded. This is the only possibility we need to know about.

If, as you insist, God did not, could not, know with certainty that Jesus would succeed, why, then, did He say so over and over again throughout the OT and the NT?

Why wouldn't He?

Why is it that He never once expressed doubt or uncertainty about it?

Why would He?

You seem to be asking me why God inspired the Bible writes to write certain things and not others. I cannot speak for God on this question. I can only speak of what God did reveal.

God did reveal to a modern day prophet that He sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. As to why He didn't do so earlier, with one of the Scripture writers, how could I possibly know that?

Could it be that the risk concept Sister White introduced 1,900 years after Jesus succeeded on the cross does not imply God did not know ahead of time if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross?

I don't see how. It's like 2 + 2 = 4.

A.If God knows a certain thing will happen with 100% certainty, then that thing will happen.

B.God knew Christ would succeed with 100% certain.

C.It is certain Christ would succeed.

D.Therefore, there is no risk that Christ would fail.

This seems to follow, like 2 + 2 = 4. Do you see any error here?

Could it be that you have drawn the wrong conclusions?

Could it be that you have drawn wrong conclusions?

A.If God is 100% certain that a thing will happen, that thing is 100% certain to happen.

By starting this premise off with the word “if” you are implying there are times when God does not know ahead of time how the future will play out. I believe God knows ahead of time how everything will play out because He knows the future like He knows the past. Thus, God is 100% certain how everything will play out, and everything is 100% certain to play out accordingly.

B.Risk means there is a chance of loss; that is, a greater than 0% chance that a given event will occur which results in loss.

True. But when we factor in God’s ability to know the future like He knows the past “risk” means more than what it means to those of us who know nothing about the future outcome of a given event. But just because God knew with 100% certainty that Jesus would succeed in saving us, it didn’t diminish the “risk” Jesus experienced during His earthly sojourn. In this case, “risk” didn’t mean God was uncertain if Jesus would fail or succeed.

C.Because God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss, there was a greater than 0% chance that Christ would suffer failure and eternal loss.

God did not send His Son to live and die for us not knowing if He would fail or succeed. The “risk” Jesus took was real. He could have sinned. He could have failed. But God knew He would succeed. Jesus knew He was going to continue succeeding until His death on the cross. He never once doubted it. But knowing so did not diminish His experience. He still sweated great drops of blood.

D.Therefore it could not be the case that God was 100% certain that Christ would not suffer failure or eternal loss.

False. The fact God repeatedly declared that Jesus would succeed in saving us is evidence He knew with 100% certainty that Jesus would succeed. He never once doubted it. Knowing so, however, did not lessen the agony of soul God felt as Jesus suffered and died.